Major Crimes Act

Ninth Circuit Reverses Major Crimes Act Conviction for Crime Arising on Navajo

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the opinion in United States v. Benally.

An excerpt:

Joe Arviso Benally appeals a jury conviction for involuntary manslaughter under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1112 and 1153 and for using a firearm in connection with a “crime of violence” under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). In a separate unpublished memorandum disposition, we address Benally’s challenge to the trial proceedings and sentence. In this opinion, we address whether involuntary manslaughter can be considered a “crime of violence” under § 924(c). We hold that involuntary manslaughter is not a “crime of violence” and reverse the § 924(c) count of conviction.

Federal Court Rejects Challenge to Major Crimes Act Conviction, Defendant Argued Justice Thomas’ View of Indian Law

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in United States v. Bearcomesout (D. Mont.):

26 Motion to Dismiss

30 Response

31 Reply

32 DCT Order

An excerpt:

Citing decades of “schizophrenic” case law, Bearcomesout argues that the law has evolved such that the Northern Cheyenne Tribe’s concept of self-governance and sovereignty has disappeared. As a result, Bearcomesout argues that the Tribe is “subject to the external whim of the United States” which inherently extinguishes the tribe’s sovereignty. Because the Tribe is not sovereign, Bearcomesout argues that her prosecution in Northern Cheyenne Tribal Court was in essence a federal prosecution, in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause.

The obvious disagreement about the state of tribal sovereignty among Supreme Court justices contained in various dissents and concurrences over the years unquestionably creates uncertainty and doubt about whether the term “independent sovereign” still appropriately applies to Indian tribes. Nevertheless, as recently as June of this year, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the rule from Wheeler and its progeny that tribal sovereignty continues to exist, at least as it relates to Double Jeopardy….

US Cert Opposition Brief in Zepeda

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

US Cert Opp Brief

An excerpt:

Petitioner contends (Pet. 11-22) that the Ninth Circuit’s definition of an “Indian” for purposes of 18 U.S.C. 1153 violates equal protection. Petitioner further asserts (Pet. 22-23) that the Ninth Circuit’s decision conflicts with a decision from the Utah Supreme Court. Those claims lack merit. The court of appeals’ decision – which follows this Court’s precedent – is fully consistent with the Constitution, and no conflict exists on the question presented. Moreover, this case would be a poor vehicle to consider the meaning of “Indian” in Section 1153 because petitioner qualifies under any conceivable definition, including the one he proposes. Further review is not warranted.

Cert petition is here.

Zepeda v. United States Cert Petition

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here:

Zepeda Cert Petition

Questions presented:

The Indian Major Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1153, makes it a federal crime for an “Indian” to commit any one of thirteen enumerated acts in “Indian country.” In this case, the en banc Ninth Circuit held that an element of the offense in prosecutions under this statute is proof that the defendant has “Indian blood,” whether or not that blood tie is to a federally recognized tribe. The question presented is:
Whether, as construed by the Ninth Circuit, Section 1153 impermissibly discriminates on the basis of race.
Opinion here. En banc materials here, here, and here. Panel materials and other materials here, here, and here.

Updated Ninth Circuit Briefs in United States v. Alvirez

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here:

Alvirez Supplemental Brief

US Supplemental Brief

The Ninth Circuit panel decided this one way back in 2013, but withdrew the opinion to await the en banc decision in United States v. Zepeda.

Ninth Circuit Sitting En Banc Announced “Indian Status” Test under Major Crimes Act

Matthew L.M. Fletcher3 Comments

Here is the opinion in United States v. Zepeda.

From the syllabus:

The en banc court affirmed a defendant’s convictions and sentence under the Indian Major Crimes Act, which authorizes federal jurisdiction over certain crimes committed by Indians in Indian country.

The en banc court held in order to prove Indian status under the IMCA, the government must prove that the defendant (1) has some quantum of Indian blood and (2) is a member of, or is affiliated with, a federally recognized tribe. The court held further that under the IMCA, a defendant must have been an Indian at the time of the charged conduct, and
that, under the second prong, a tribe’s federally recognized status is a question of law to be determined by the trial judge. Overruling United States v. Maggi, 598 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir.
2010), the en banc court held that the federal recognition requirement does not extend to the first prong of the Indian status test. The court held that the evidence at trial was sufficient to support the finding that the defendant was an Indian within the meaning of the IMCA at the time of his crimes.

The en banc court held that the defendant’s sentence was not unreasonable because it was mandated by 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), which required the district court to impose consecutive mandatory minimum sentences on the defendant’s convictions for use of a firearm during a crime of violence.

The en banc court agreed with the three-judge panel’s reasons for rejecting the defendant’s other arguments, and it adopted those reasons as its own.

Concurring in the judgment, Judge Kozinski, joined by Judge Ikuta, wrote that under the majority’s holding, the IMCA is a criminal statute whose application, in violation of equal protection, turns on whether a defendant is of a particular race. Judge Kozinski wrote that he would instead affirm the conviction either by applying the IMCA to all members of federally recognized tribes irrespective of their race, or by holding, consistent with Maggi, that the jury had sufficient evidence to infer that the defendant’s ancestry was from a federally recognized tribe.

Concurring in the judgment, Judge Ikuta, joined by Judge Kozinski, wrote that the court should not continue to define an Indian by the “degree of Indian blood” because this definition disrespects tribal sovereignty and perpetuates the “sorry history” of this method of establishing race-based distinctions.

En banc materials here, here, and here. Panel materials and other materials here, here, and here.

Ninth Circuit Rejects Habeas Petition of Navajo Man Sentenced to Death

Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here is the opinion in United States v. Mitchell.

Brief tk.

Eighth Circuit Affirms Major Crimes Act Convictions; Rejects “Indian Status” Claim

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the opinion in United States v. Martin.

Briefs:

Martin Brief

US Brief

Martin Reply

Tenth Circuit Refuses to Vacate Conviction under Indian Status Theory

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the opinion in Nowlin v. United States.

An excerpt:

Our case law employs a two-part test to determine who is an “Indian” under § 1153: a person must (1) have “some Indian blood” and (2) be “recognized as an Indian by a tribe or by the federal government.” United States v. Prentiss, 273 F.3d 1277, 1280 (10th Cir. 2001). Mr. Nowlin argues that the first half of this test was not met. But his plea colloquy established that his mother is an enrolled member of the Shoshone tribe. And, as a previous panel recognized in an unrelated case involving Mr. Nowlin, the fact that one of his parents was “clearly identified as an Indian” is enough to satisfy this part of the test. United States v. Nowlin, 555 F. App’x 820, 823 (10th Cir. 2014) (quoting United States v. Maggi, 598 F.3d 1073, 1077 (9th Cir. 2010)) (internal quotation mark omitted).

Briefs later, when we get them.

Ninth Circuit En Banc Oral Argument Audio in United States v. Zepeda

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here.

Panel opinion here.